effectivelywildfandomcom-20200215-history
Episode 552: Your Playoff-Related Emails, Answered
Date October 9, 2014 Summary Ben and Sam answer listener emails about the postseason. Topics * Pitchers leaning in to get the sign * Homering off Clayton Kershaw's curveball * Rooting for rivals in the playoffs * Difficulty of in-game managerial decisions * Oakland Athletics' rookie usage * Regular season vs. playoff champions * Succeeding in the postseason Intro Kanye West, "Champion" Email Questions * Scott: "Why do most pitchers lean in to get the sign from the catcher when they're in the stretch? Surely they're capable of seeing the signs from a standing position, in fact most pitchers take signs standing up when out of the windup only to hunch over awkwardly once a runner reaches base. If it is to help them pick to first wouldn't they have the ball in their throwing hand? If they are actually stretching to relieve back tension or something why not do it in the windup? Other than the odd intimidation derived by Craig Kimbrel putting his arm around the shoulder of his diminutive imaginary friend I simply do not see any practical reason for leaning in. So what am I missing?" * Michael: "I remember reading something a few years ago about how nobody had ever managed to hit a regular season homer on Clayton Kershaw's curveball. I holstered this to be drawn later as a Clayton Kershaw fun fact and have drawn it a few times. You can see Jeff Sullivan make reference to this fact in his article from May 2013. I'm a Cards fan and I've seen the Cards face Kershaw a pretty fair amount in the playoffs recently and the thing I keep noticing is that the Cards just won't stop homering when he throws a curveball. So, I'm not sure of the validity of this whole thing nor am I sure how to look into it. Maybe you can make something of it but this seems to have the makings of a fun fact that's getting even funner." * Zachary: "If you worked for a non-playoff team and could be detached from the emotions of rivalries would you be rooting for or against your division rivals in the playoffs? I could see rooting against that team because maybe a title would mean more money, they'd be harder to compete against in the future. But I could also see the argument that most teams have money and money doesn't buy much anymore so I'd rather they win and maybe get complacent or they keep advancing and their pitchers have to throw more, sometimes on short rest, and maybe that helps us next year or in the long run. Any thoughts?" * Matt: response to a tweet of Mitchel Lichtman's saying that in-game managerial decisions weren't that difficult "I understand you might be bored of talking about manager decisions but MGL seemed to bring it up in a slightly different way and I'd be interested in hearing what kind of response you have to that on the podcast." * Steve: "In some of your past conversations it has been clear that neither of you know a whole lot about European soccer so I'm going to consider it possible that you don't realize that in the highest level of soccer in England and most other European countries there are no playoffs. The regular season winner is the winner. There are also no sub divisions within the league, everyone just plays everyone twice and whoever is at the top at the end wins. They keep some knockout excitement by having a parallel tournament including all teams from the lowest tiers on up that leads to a national cup champion in addition to the regular season champion. This can be the same team possibly and this achievement is known as the double. However most fans of English soccer that I've talked to don't value the cup nearly as highly as they value the regular season crown. How would you feel about dual and equally valued regular season and postseason champions being recognized? I've been thinking about this difference as well as cultural differences between the two regions and I can't help but feel the idea that you can be mediocre for most of the season but redeem yourself in the playoffs through some combination of luck and legitimate improvement is extremely American. It seems to me that the abolition of playoffs in American sports would lead to people feeling that teams were deprived of their chance to show what they were made of when it mattered most and that it was somehow unfair when in reality playoffs are probably the less just way of determining the season's winner." * Jason: "There is a perennial sort of talk among baseball commentators that seems to take it for granted that it's easy to say that this or that team is the best team in baseball or the best team in the league. This happens even quite early in the season like when the Giants were leading the majors at 42-21. And then there's complaining when the best teams get eliminated because they play like crap or get shut down in a five game series when it really counts. But perhaps we should simply admit that there's more to a team's greatness than simply having the best record over 162 games. The Nationals had the best record in the NL but in the NLDS the Giants outhit them substantially and the Giants pitchers shut down the Nats' well balanced deep lineup. The third and fourth hitters for the Nats, Werth and LaRoche, had .071 averages in the series. Their fifth hitter, Desmond batted .143. True the Giants in a much more powerful division finished eight games behind the Nats but over 162 games does this easily translate into the Nats are the better team? What if the Nats can't deliver when it counts? What if their manager, a critical part of the team, can't make good flexible decisions in pressure situations? Best team, really? I think a lot of the talk about how the current playoff setup doesn't crown a legitimate champion is silly. The goal is to get to have the sort of team that can a) get to the postseason and b) succeed when it gets there. There's no reason to assume that the best team will be the best at succeeding in the postseason is necessarily the team that will be best at securing a winning record in the regular season, so teams should be built and balanced for both purposes. That's what it means to be the best team, to be able to do both." Play Index * Billy Burns was the only rookie, batter or pitcher, used by the A's this season. * Since 1998 there have been just 8 teams that only had 1 rookie batter during a season. * The A's are the only team since 1998 to not play a rookie pitcher during the season. * The A's did not use a lot of rookies this year. * Except for the 2014 A's all teams since 1998 have played at least 5 rookies during every season (batters and pitchers). Notes * Sam thinks the Kershaw 'no home runs on curveballs' fun fact becomes far less interesting because the Cardinals have hit several off his curve in the playoffs. * Teams that win a World Series tend to stand pat over the offseason and also usually have front office members hired away by other teams. * Mitchel Lichtman thinks there is a quantifiably correct answer for in-game managerial decisions, but Ben is not sure things are that straightforward. * Ben would be fine with having a regular season champion but thinks it would be difficult to catch on given how ingrained the World Series is. Links * Effectively Wild Episode 552: Your Playoff-Related Emails, Answered Category:Episodes Category:Email Episodes